From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Cardiology>
  4. Summary and Comment

No Benefit of High-Dose Epinephrine in Child CPR

A standard dose of 0.01 mg/kg remains the one to use.

The use of epinephrine in cardiopulmonary resuscitation is intended to improve coronary and cerebral perfusion. Some experts contend that a standard dose (0.01 mg/kg) achieves this goal less well than higher doses, but recent evidence to support this contention is slim. The recommended initial dose in child CPR is the standard dose, but there is debate about whether subsequent doses (if needed) should be increased to 0.1 mg/kg.

In a randomized trial, researchers enrolled 68 children (mean age, 6 years) who remained in cardiac arrest after initial in-hospital CPR with standard-dose epinephrine. For subsequent doses, children received either the standard dose or the higher dose (0.1 mg/kg). Informed consent was waived.

At 24 hours, only one child in the high-dose group and seven children in the low-dose group were alive (odds ratio for death, 8.6; 95% CI, 1.0-397.0). No high-dose recipients and four standard-dose recipients survived to discharge. Of the four survivors, two were alive and neurologically normal at 6 months.

Comment: For children who remained in cardiac arrest after initial in-hospital CPR, a higher rescue dose of epinephrine had no advantage over a standard dose and might have been harmful. Nevertheless, prognosis was grim with either regimen. The editorialists believe that, for now, these results are sufficient to support use of the standard dose for rescue in children.

— Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM

Published in Journal Watch Cardiology June 11, 2004

Citation(s):

Perondi MBM et al. A comparison of high-dose and standard-dose epinephrine in children with cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 2004 Apr 22; 350:1722-30.

Lister G and Pérez Fontán JJ. Can resuscitation jeopardize survival? N Engl J Med 2004 Apr 22; 350:1708-9.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Sign-In

Forgot your password? Login via Athens
or your institution

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2004. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.